Capitol - Your Illinois News Radar » It’s just a bill, Part 9,867
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      About     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact Rich Miller
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
It’s just a bill, Part 9,867

Monday, Feb 9, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller

* I’m guessing this one’s gonna face a tough slog

Hunters and other shooting enthusiasts would be allowed to have silencers on their guns under a bill filed in the Illinois legislature.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, said gun owners want silencers for a simple reason: to avoid hearing loss.

“There are a lot of veterans, a lot of hunters and shooters, who have suffered hearing loss,” Phelps said.

Phelps acknowledged that gun opponents are likely to challenge the bill.

“I’m used to that. They said that about concealed-carry — they said everybody was going to be running around shooting each other, like the wild west,” Phelps said. “That’s the movies.”

* And an AmmoLand writer loves Sen. Bivins’ new bill

Illinois Senator Tim Bivins has introduced an act to allow people with valid concealed carry permits to carry, purchase, and possess switchblade knives, stun guns, or tasers.

It is an incremental reform to the Illinois code. If the bill can make it out of committee and up for a vote, it seems imminently sensible.

Who would object to someone who is legally allowed to carry a concealed pistol, from being allowed to carry a knife, stun gun, or taser in the same circumstances? […]

The ban on knives that open with the push of a button, or “switchblades” comes from an era when yellow journalists were testing the limits of their new found power. They were able to push for a ban on common pocket knives by appealing to emotion and prejudice. Some say that the play “West Side Story” was directly responsible for the ban.

* Other stuff…

* Bill would create prep sports concussion oversight in Illinois

* Rauner Doesn’t Like Senate Bill


  1. - walker - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:39 am:

    Ear plugs?

    Silencers are just another way for macho wannabes to pretend they are special forces.

  2. - DuPage - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:41 am:

    Aren’t silencers against federal law?

  3. - Dave - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:43 am:

    Here is a good bit of information about silencers that as far as I can tell is accurate. Before people start overreacting, try and throw out what you have seen in the movies. Aye, this is from a silencer company, but if they sell them, they do try to keep up with the current laws and information.

  4. - John Boch - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:50 am:

    Suppressors: What’s the big deal? Like short-barreled rifles the Illinois General Assembly approved a couple of years ago (and signed into law by Pat Quinn of all people), there’s a federal background check and a $200 tax stamp that must be bought from the feds before you can pick it up. It’s not like Joe Sixpack can go to Guns-R-Us after work and pick up a couple then be back home in time for dinner. Short barreled rifles haven’t been problematic and neither will suppressors once they are approved.

    Benefits of “cans”: Hearing protection primarily. It also is less intrusive to man and beast around where a person is firing their gun. It’s not a “silencer”, it merely reduces the gunshot report to a loud clap in most cases.

    Like short-barreled rifles, the Illinois General Assembly may not pass this on the first go around, but through education it’ll get passed eventually. Sort of like civil unions and medical marijuana eventually passed once legislators were educated about the topics.

    As for automatic knives, and electronic “stun” devices: Again, modest steps to open avenues of self-defense for the law-abiding in Illinois.

    Today’s perfectly legal “assisted opening” knives are very similar to fully “automatic” knives this proposal seeks to legalize. Yes, some folks pejoratively call automatic knives “switch blades” by the same people who disparage affordable handguns as “Saturday Night Specials”.

    Stun devices? They’ve been legal to buy forever in IL. Have we had a rash of drive-by Taserings? Not that I’m aware of.

    I will close with the fact that Indiana has had all of the above for many years and the criminal misuse of the above is somewhere between zero and nil. Then again, they had right-to-carry for decades before Illinois started to catch up with them.


  5. - Skirmisher - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:51 am:

    Hey, everyone- Hardly a country on earth is more restrictive on firearms than the United Kingdom. However, where large caliber firearms are concerned (Hunting and target rifles), the British require the use of silencers in some areas. It is a bit of a jolt to an American to go a shooting club and see all of these silenced rifles, but the reduction in noise is very impressive, and it permits shooting ranges to be located in relatively developed areas without causing a nuisance. The prohibition on these things over here is a hold-over from the over-reaction to gangster movies.

  6. - Been There - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:52 am:

    ===The ban on knives that open with the push of a button, or “switchblades”===
    Heck, I didn’t even know switchblades were illegal. And I always thought my first illegal activity was blowing off fireworks. It looks like the blade that use to be in my tackle box was.

  7. - How Ironic - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:01 pm:

    “The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, said gun owners want silencers for a simple reason: to avoid hearing loss.

    “There are a lot of veterans, a lot of hunters and shooters, who have suffered hearing loss,” Phelps said.”

    I am a gun owner, and enjoy an afternoon down at the range. I say “Wear ear protection”. Invest in a good pair of muffs, or in-ear plugs.

    Silencers if used, don’t negate the need for hearing protection. They don’t make it ‘whisper’ quiet, but they do lower the db level significantly.

    The problem for the general public is too much ‘movie magic’. A silencer doesn’t reduce the noise level that much.

  8. - downstate commissioner - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:08 pm:

    fine line between “switchblade” and “assisted opening” knives; don’t quite know the difference. The assisted opener in my pocket is a sturdy work knife, heavy blade, serrations, windshield punch, seat belt cutter; it opens as fast as a switch blade- main advantage is fast one-handed use.
    Silencers are common in Europe, mainly for the convenience of the surrounding public. Don’t have much use for one myself, but have no problem with them…

  9. - kimocat - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:10 pm:

    Maybe I’m different, but if somebody decides to shoot up a place — I want to hear the gunshots. And if you need to use ear protection anyway, it seems that suppressors are more likely to be used by people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place.

  10. - anon - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:11 pm:

    There are these things called earmuffs. Hunters wear them all the time.

  11. - Empty Suit - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:16 pm: was explained to me, I can carry one of those Rambo knives on my belt legally but if I carry a knife the size of my finger and that opens with a button it’s a felony?
    WT Hey!

  12. - How Ironic - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:21 pm:


    “Maybe I’m different, but if somebody decides to shoot up a place — I want to hear the gunshots. ”

    You will. Google silencer shooting on YouTube. There’s all sorts of videos with people using them.

    Like I said, Hollywood has done a great job overstating the noise suppression of silencers. They certainly dial down the noise, but it’s hardly ’silent’.

  13. - relocated - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:22 pm:

    I’m struggling to find an actual benefit to hunters from using a suppressor. In the field a competent hunter wouldn’t be firing a large number of shots consecutively to risk hearing loss. The only times that might apply are for shotgun sports where suppression technology is not widely available. At the range there are no downsides to protective devices. This seems to be pandering to the NRA crowd.

  14. - Rusty618 - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:29 pm:

    I shot over 200 rounds yesterday at a private range from several different guns. Guess what? I wore 2 layers of ear protection.

    I can understand the hunters point of view though, as listening for prey does play a roll when you are hunting.

  15. - Precinct Captain - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:41 pm:

    ==fine line between “switchblade” and “assisted opening” knives; don’t quite know the difference.==

    There’s some text and videos from MoJo, part of a thing from a “knife lobby” article they did a few years ago.

  16. - Anonymous - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:54 pm:

    The media on the silencer bill has also been misleading. The possession of a silencer would still be a violation of the Criminal Code in Illinois if Phelps’ bill were to pass. So this bill appears to be merely a press-pop (big surprise)

  17. - Federalist - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 12:56 pm:

    Allow ’silencers.’ Wow, I think not!

  18. - Wordslinger - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 1:20 pm:

    “West Side Story” and switchblades? Who knew “Ammoland” was into the show tunes.

  19. - Rat race? What's that? - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 1:23 pm:

    Terrible premise for sponsoring a bill. Terrible. It’s nonsense that will get laughed at - and should.

    For me, a suppressor is a way for me not to bother anyone as opposed to any other reason. There is a shooting range close to my home - which I belong to - and I can often hear shooting. Sure wish I could suppress my firearms so I didn’t have to worry about bothering others with my noise - but still enjoy some target practice.

    Suppressors are just another example in a very long line of examples that are gasp-inspiring in Illinois but perfectly legal and acceptable nearly everywhere else. Why is Illinois such a Twilight Zone? Why don’t people in this state think life exists elsewhere with these things with no problems?

  20. - Todd - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 1:31 pm:

    Its not a press flop. There is a lot to go into it to make it work. This was the initial filing. Both the criminal code and FOID act need to be amended

    Lets talk about a few of the FACTS about suppressors:

    1. They are legal for ownership,in 39 states. 3 midwest states outlaw them for private ownership, illinois, Iowa, Minnisota.

    2. 35 states allowmthem for the taking of game.

    3. They are regulated but not banned under federal law. Just to transfer a suppressor between federal firearms licensees takes about 2 months right now. Tranfer to a private party is running 9 months.

    4 to own one you must submit finger prints, and go through the background check after having a law enforcement chief sign off on it.

    5. There is a federal $200 tax required for each suppressor an individual owns. And if you decide to trade one for another, you pay again.

    6. They are not silent. A .223 caliber noise gets cut down from about 180 db to 130db. Hearing protection is still required at that point as it is about as loud as a jack hammer.

    So why have one? Cuts down on noise, they improve accuracy, reduce recoil. When hutning I’ve touched off a round and had my ears ringing for 3 days with one of my handguns. Ear plugs and ear muffs don’t really go well with hunting, so not having to deal with potential hearing loss or imparment and still be able to hear game is a benefit.

    In the home for self defense, touching off a gun in a confined space really reverberates the sound. Try going to an indoor range some time. Imusually double up,on hearing protection there.

    Lastly, whynshould they be illegal? If someone has a FOID, has to gomthrough a finger print background check and pay a $200 tax as well as waitabout 9 months? What it the problem?

    We heard in the run up,to concealed carry that people would shootmeach other over parking spaces. We would have blood in the streets. It would be the wild west. NONE of that has happened. So like the other 39 states, this would for the most part be a yawn to the average person. Just like the cops have said concealed carry was no big deal a year later, 92000 permits, less than 200 revoked for any reason.

    This will be much the same.

  21. - Pot calling kettle - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 1:33 pm:

    I don’t feel safe without a street sweeper. But, maybe that’s just me.

    But seriously, guns are legal; the Supreme Court has put some pretty tight limits on how far regulation can go. Many of the differences between what is legal and what is not are more about superficial appearances than anything else.

    What the Supremes have not restricted is registration and purchasing limits. I would rather see the gunshow loophole closed and tracking of guns so that those used in crimes can be tracked back to the original purchaser.

  22. - Todd - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 1:53 pm:

    The so called gun show loophole has been “closed” in illinois for some time. Unless you would care to define it for us.

  23. - Wordslinger - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 2:09 pm:

    Todd, you bring up gun shows. Isnt the problem here straw buyers running over to shows in Merrillville and Hammond to buy for gang bangers?

    Given your interest in the subject, what would you say are the sources of gangbangers and felons here getting guns?

    (John, I’d ask you, but since you like to brag online about how you “lose” your guns, I think I know your answer already).

  24. - crazybleedingheart - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 2:28 pm:

    “In the home for self defense, touching off a gun in a confined space really reverberates the sound.”

    If your likelihood of firing a gun in defense of castle is high enough to be concerned about the *noise,* it would appear you might want to look into lifting the IL ban on crocodile-filled moats.

  25. - Empty Suit - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 2:48 pm:

    Hmm maybe the switchblade law makes silencer needed

  26. - FormerParatrooper - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 2:58 pm:

    Allowing the use of silencers in Illinois is not going to lead in an increase of crime.

    There is not a whole of crime committed with silencers anywhere. I cannot recall the last time I even heard of a crime committed with a silencer or than possession without a tax stamp.

    What’s the big deal if they legal Illinois? Look at them as another source of revenue.

  27. - RonOglesby - Now in Texas - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:02 pm:

    most folks who rail against lifting the ban on suppressors generally use one of two arguments…

    1- I want to hear the bad guys shooting
    2- So what put on hearing protection

    Both show ignorance of what suppressors do and dont do and are really simple knee-jerk arguments made out of ignorance of firearms. Many of these same people using these arguments would love to have the gun laws of Germany or the UK. Both places where (if you own a gun, have the ID/permit) can generally get a suppressor. Hell, its considered polite!

    As Todd and others have mentioned. Its not james bond. There is still plenty of noise. And hearing loss is compounded and never regenerating.

    I ask that if you argue against legalization (think now… $200 fee, FBI background check, signature from local chief of police…) that you really think and come up with logical arguments other than these two. To those that understand suppressors you show yourself ignorant of them and it weakens your argument greatly (unless of course you are only arguing points to your own side).

  28. - downstate commissioner - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:53 pm:

    $200 plus the cost of the silencer + paperwork + registration (with the feds) + 9 months wait: Think I’d really need one to go thru all that…
    I don’t hunt, and if I shoot an intruder, hearing loss is the last thing that I would be thinking about…

  29. - Todd - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:02 pm:

    Word –

    I didn’t bring up gun shows, Pot did. But since you asked;

    the largest seems to come from the use of straw buyers. We know that 1/2 the gun picked up in Chicago come from out of state. We know that criminals may go acros the border to Indiana and use phoney IDs to obtain firearms. We also know through tracing reports that a fiar number come from Mississippi. Due to cultural and family ties, they again use people as straws to buy guns there. Any “transfer” or sale of a firearm between private parties twhere they are not from the same state is a federal crime.

    Add to that you have home break ins where firearms are stolen and the robbing of commercial shipments, UPS, FEDEX and even rail cars.

    for those here in Illinois, outside of the stolen guns it appears that straw buyers are a ;large source. Girl friends or friends who have clean records ans FOID cards traffic guns for their felonous friends. and then think its no big deal.

    Few if any seem to be prosecuted.

  30. - Chuck in IL - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:28 pm:

    “Few if any seem to be prosecuted”

    And therein lies the problem. The gun grabbers are always clamoring for more laws, but they never seem to interested in upholding the ones we have. For the record, silencers just make sense. If your natural instinct is to oppose them, ask yourself why. Forget everything you have seen in the movies and on TV about silencers (guns in general really) and look at the places that allow them. Investigate how many crimes were committed with them. Then give me your reasons for opposition.

  31. - Wordslinger - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:25 pm:

    Todd, can you ship guns via Fed Ex and UPS? I didn’t know that.

    I thought guns by mail were outlawed after Lee Harvey supposedly ordered that rifle out of Chicago through the mail.

    Barring mail sales was an NRA initiative back in the day, if I recall.

    How can gun guys assist law enforcement in ending straw buyers and those who pretend to lose their guns like John Boch?

  32. - RNUG - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:07 pm:

    == Word ==,

    The key word there was commercial. I believe shipments to someone with the proper federal firearms / dealer licenses is done all the time.

  33. - FormerParatrooper - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 6:29 am:

    FedEx and UPS will accept firearms, with restrictions. I sent a rifle back to the manufacturer recently for warranty work. It was simple to do. The firearm was shipped back to my residence.

  34. - Chuck in IL - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:04 am:

    Any interstate gun purchase must be sent to an FFL, barring special provisions for antiques and collectables. There is no mail order loophole, anymore than there ever was a gunshow loophole.

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.

* Open thread
* Isabel’s morning briefing
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today's edition
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Yesterday's stories

Visit our advertisers...




Main Menu
Pundit rankings
Subscriber Content
Blagojevich Trial
Updated Posts

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005


RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0

Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller